Is it What? Or Which?

There is a sign at a church here in our little town. It asks "Is prayer your steering wheel, or your spare tire?"

How is this even a question?
What does it even mean?
Which answer would be the wrong answer? Aren't both options a viable use of prayer?
Is this really an either/or question?

Steering wheels and tires are both round, and they are both essential parts of a car. Essential parts of steering, driving, directing a car. (At least until joysticks or their equivalent take over, which I fully expect to see become standard before my time is done.)

But they have very different functions.

The tired old apples and oranges comparison doesn't even come close. Apples and oranges both being fruit, as steering and tires are both wheels.

Oranges and potatoes may be a closer simile/metaphor.
Pretzels and popcorn.
Balloons (the hot air kind) and baby carriages. (Do they still make those?)
Kitty cats and Gorillas.

Yes, this sign flummoxes me, every time I pass it. (Usually twice a day.)

I don't know what it means, or how it came to be phrased that way, or whose bright idea it was. It may even have come from a book. "The Half-Baked Signage Suggestions"

But do you know what else?
It has also done what it was intended to do.
It has made this sign-reader take a look at prayer and life, and wonder how and why it's used and when and where.

And, to answer my own question, I am pretty sure that there isn't really a wrong answer for prayer as a directing force. (That includes defining prayer as scientific questioning of how and why the universe works.)

So -- is prayer -- whatever you conceive it to be -- your steering wheel, your spare tire, or maybe a ball bearing? Or a pea. Or maybe even your hula hoop.

Food for Thinking

My new grandson is approaching the 4 month mark. He is also drooling, pushing the nipple around with his tongue, stuffing anything into his mouth, and seeming unsatisfied with just his milk.

In a less enlightened age, these would have been seen as signs that he's ready to try solids.
Nowadays, the doctors usually will not recommend feeding until six months of age, unless weight loss starts to 'trend' in the child. A calendar and a magic number are, of course, more rational guidelines than individual development. They are a better indicator than common sense that says if the baby is getting hungry, try feeding him.

I have an objection to the recommended feedings, too. Back in the dark ages, when I was growing up and helping with an endless stream of younger siblings, the first things we offered were fruits.
Now, historically, or maybe I mean evolutionarily, this makes sense. Humans started out as hunter-gatherers, and when our babies were ready to start solids, over ripe fruit was probably the softest thing available for gathering.. Thus, babies would start eating with fruits, and that practice remained at least to the 1970s.

Now, they want parents to start the infants on cereals -- grains. A food that, even at its purest, has to be ground and/or milled before it can be prepared for a toothless mostly sucking infant.
This just doesn't fit the needs of a hunter-gatherer society. Prepared foods would come a little later, logically.

Now, before someone tells me about the delicate process of sensitizing (or not) the baby's delicate digestive process, I'd like to offer a couple arguments.

1) gluten intolerance
2) celiac disease.

We didn't have these  runaway rampant allergy/digestive problems back in the days when we fed our infants by using common sense and instinctive traditions, did we?
Yes, there were some; proportionately, not as many.

Babies with delicate systems largely did not survive. It's good that we can now compensate, sometimes, for these problems, but maybe we should take a serious look at how they are started. Somewhere there should be alarm bells ringing that we are creating the problem by circumventing the evolutionary process.

Many people point at processed foods. Well, that well may be part of the problem, but is it the start of the problem? Maybe someone needs to investigate the possibilities that mothers have for eons been right and the scientists, in just a few decades, have created problems with their charts and calendars and thinking that "how it should be" is "how it is."

Those of us who have fed children out in the real world know that they don't live, grow, or thrive under laboratory conditions.
Ever.